Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

It's not just an issue there. I live closest to the 33rd South stop, and the screens there are very run-down as well. Same at the 21st South stop (my other most-used stop).

I'm sure the newer lines have better screens, but I never have a need to ride those ones, and the majority of traffic is still on the Sandy/Salt Lake/University lines (although I'm sure the Airport gets a lot, too). It would be nice to see UTA invest some money into the older stops.

I'd like to see the whole plastic tactile strip project get sped up (one station at a time, really?) and for the old station canopies to get replaced with modern ones (I have a concept in my head but because I'm too unartistic I can't render it, but I'll explain it below and maybe do plans and upload them to imgur) because they are way too small. I'd also like to see drinking fountains at the stations.

[jubguy3]

I was digging through, and found something interesting - UTA wants to create a 400 W transit mall from 2nd south to 6th north in coalition with the south Davis corridor project.

WTF?

That's not how a transit mall works. It would get served by 5 routes, and those four (all only on the mall between north temple and 2nd north) non- brt routes don't stop between turning on / off of north temple and entering the 3rd north 5th west diagonal bus loop service north temple frontrunner. That makes it a transit mall with one route. I am utterly confused. To add on to it, the TRAX only stops on 4th west once at planetarium, and the other stations are away - only in proximity at Arena / 350 W and North Temple / 5th W. So, on all modes of transit (and, because it ends at 2nd south, it will not serve as a crossing between a bus artery and also not serving the granary streetcar) there is one trax stop, a couple brt stops, and no bus stops.

Why not take the money to convert a street that gets little pedestrian usage and inward - oriented retail in to a transit mall and move it in to engaged, pedestrian friendly bus compatible roads like Main Street and 2nd S? All one would need to do is make it in to a bus tree with routes serving 2nd south get pushed up to Main Street and then tricking back west / south - north, effectively increasing the number of services to a proposed transit mall 20 fold, with potential service pushed up to state street too (I.E. a couple routes that split away from 2nd south farther east currently can be pushed up to state, moving all services on to state and main bar a couple that would remain behind and just use a much easier 2nd south transit mall that is actually within the CBD, not the depot district) for the future 2nd / state hub.
These are the same people that want to build a bus hub at Union Park Ave / Ft Union Blvd serving a shocking one route but not make any upgrades to the busiest hub in utah, SLCS. UTA would much rather create a hub between a shocking one (or 2 if it gets moved to 13th east) route than make a grand and inviting project with the intermodal hub. Revitalize the suburbs? Sure! Revitalize the depot district? Naaah.

We need to get RTD out here to kick out Allegra and do a worthwhile job on our hubs and our transit malls. UTA may try to reduce sprawl but when you dig down it's sadly clear that it's run by people who appreciate the SW valley for no reason rather than creating good, dense, and closely knit communities actually based within the city. It's like west valley had a baby with Las Vegas, and here they are designing our transit system.

fucking unbelievable.

[jubguy3]

Here's an image describing potential bus arterials and the transit mall config.

People can use 1st or 3rd south, damn it. (I would imagine a 1st south bridge under SPCC with an intersection at 2nd west under SP or a tunnel extending farther south would be necessary, although the tunnel would require steep gradients.

EDIT: I'm a dumbass. The 2nd west intersection is not underground. With the connection of 1st south, the ESA / depot district should start to see revitalization just south of 1st south, which needs upgrades.

[EPdesign]

Is a 200s line just an idea, or is it in the works?

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

Is a 200s line just an idea, or is it in the works?

Just an idea (unless you mean streetcar, which is in the works)

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I was digging through, and found something interesting - UTA wants to create a 400 W transit mall from 2nd south to 6th north in coalition with the south Davis corridor project.

WTF?

That's not how a transit mall works. It would get served by 5 routes, and those four (all only on the mall between north temple and 2nd north) non- brt routes don't stop between turning on / off of north temple and entering the 3rd north 5th west diagonal bus loop service north temple frontrunner. That makes it a transit mall with one route. I am utterly confused. To add on to it, the TRAX only stops on 4th west once at planetarium, and the other stations are away - only in proximity at Arena / 350 W and North Temple / 5th W. So, on all modes of transit (and, because it ends at 2nd south, it will not serve as a crossing between a bus artery and also not serving the granary streetcar) there is one trax stop, a couple brt stops, and no bus stops.

Why not take the money to convert a street that gets little pedestrian usage and inward - oriented retail in to a transit mall and move it in to engaged, pedestrian friendly bus compatible roads like Main Street and 2nd S? All one would need to do is make it in to a bus tree with routes serving 2nd south get pushed up to Main Street and then tricking back west / south - north, effectively increasing the number of services to a proposed transit mall 20 fold, with potential service pushed up to state street too (I.E. a couple routes that split away from 2nd south farther east currently can be pushed up to state, moving all services on to state and main bar a couple that would remain behind and just use a much easier 2nd south transit mall that is actually within the CBD, not the depot district) for the future 2nd / state hub.
These are the same people that want to build a bus hub at Union Park Ave / Ft Union Blvd serving a shocking one route but not make any upgrades to the busiest hub in utah, SLCS. UTA would much rather create a hub between a shocking one (or 2 if it gets moved to 13th east) route than make a grand and inviting project with the intermodal hub. Revitalize the suburbs? Sure! Revitalize the depot district? Naaah.

We need to get RTD out here to kick out Allegra and do a worthwhile job on our hubs and our transit malls. UTA may try to reduce sprawl but when you dig down it's sadly clear that it's run by people who appreciate the SW valley for no reason rather than creating good, dense, and closely knit communities actually based within the city. It's like west valley had a baby with Las Vegas, and here they are designing our transit system.

A reoccurring problem you have is that you dig up the most random things and then go bananas about it. UTA planners are just like you in that they have many ideas and think them through, but not all of their 'thinking aloud' ideas get any serious traction. In fact, very few of them do.
Moral of the story, if it isn't on UTA's website, it's not an official project.
______________________________________

In other news, I found this on the Transportation thread, and thought a few paragraphs might be applicable to this thread:

The Secrets of Successful Transit Projects — Revealed!
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/1...iendly-cities/

This is the picture they used. CountyLemonade should be able to recognize it.

The secret sauce is fairly simple, when you get down to it: Place a transit line where it will connect a lot of people to a lot of jobs and give it as much grade-separated right-of-way as possible, and it will attract a lot of riders.

What makes the work of the Berkeley researchers, led by Daniel G. Chatman, remarkable is that it compiles decades of real-world data to predict how many people will ride a given transit route. Their conclusions should bolster efforts to maximize the effectiveness of new transit investments.

The report authors examined 140-plus factors to build these ridership models, based on data collected from 55 “fixed guideway” transit projects, including rail and bus rapid transit routes, built in 18 metropolitan areas between 1974 and 2008.

They found the success of a transit project is almost synonymous with whether it serves areas that are dense in both jobs and population and have expensive parking — in short, lively urban neighborhoods. In the report’s model, the combination of these factors explains fully 62 percent of the ridership difference between transit projects.

Surprisingly, the only design factor that seemed to have a significant effect on ridership was whether the route is grade-separated (in a tunnel or on a viaduct). In isolation, transit speed, frequency, or reliability did not have significant impacts, but the great advantage of grade-separated routes is that they can run quickly and reliably through high-density areas.

While it may seem like common sense to put transit routes where they will connect people to jobs, agencies don’t always choose the best routes — often opting for expedience over effectiveness. Salt Lake City’s FrontRunner commuter rail service, for instance, very closely parallels a newly widened I-15, and many stations are located in low-density industrial or residential areas. Ridership has fallen short of expectations.

Elsewhere in Salt Lake City, the authors identify the University/Medical Center Trax light rail route as a good example of a high-ridership transit project. It connects major high-wage job centers — notably the university, its hospital, and downtown — and also many leisure destinations like museums, sports stadiums, the state fair park, concert halls, and nearly half of the region’s hotel rooms. Locals have embraced light rail as an alternative to costly parking, as well: Parking demand on the growing University of Utah campus has fallen 30 percent since the route opened. The route carries 78 percent more riders than initially projected.

It should be noted that the study years ended in 2008. While FrontRunner is doing well now, until the south section opened in 2012 it wasn't doing so well ridership-wise.
I think it is interesting, though, that they pointed to SLC as having both good and bad examples of transit done well - and now six years later, I think they're booth exceptional examples of transit done right.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Hatman

It should be noted that the study years ended in 2008. While FrontRunner is doing well now, until the south section opened in 2012 it wasn't doing so well ridership-wise.
I think it is interesting, though, that they pointed to SLC as having both good and bad examples of transit done well - and now six years later, I think they're booth exceptional examples of transit done right.

It seems kind of silly to compare light rail with commuter rail. Heavy Rail vs. Light Rail sure, but the whole idea of commuter rail is to save money by doing things like sharing with existing freight corridors (or buying extra land from the freight corridor in the case of UTA with FrontRunner).

[bbart76]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I feel like the little things can go a long way. I'm sure it's the kind of thing that's low on the priority list, but it amazes me how many high-traffic bus stops don't even have simple benches, or the land around them is very trashy and dumpy. I know UTA doesn't own the actual land around bus stops or anything, but so many of those places (often in high volume areas) are just not areas that are fun or inviting to hang around waiting for a bus. I find myself walking a few extra minutes to a stop with a bench, or that just looks better and feels more comfortable, and I often see others doing the same thing. I'm not proposing a bench at every stop, and I have no experience with other transit systems, so I don't know if this is normal, but I feel like it hampers the experience. I also feel like they could make some upgrades to the actual bus stop signage as well, but I'm less knowledgeable in proposing upgrades in that department.

How does the budget for that work anyway? Is it UTA's responsibility to install benches or is it the city's job?

The city is responsible. I agree 100%, there are many stops that need at least a bench and many that need shelters. Nothing is as fun as waiting for the bus in the hot sun or pouring rain. The city in which the stop is located needs to add these amenities.

There is an online petition now to encourage UTA to extend their hours. You should sign it. http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/utah-transit-authority

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by bbart76

There is an online petition now to encourage UTA to extend their hours. You should sign it. http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/utah-transit-authority

The thing I dislike about these petitions, which inevitably pop up every once in a while, is that they operate under the assumption that UTA can flip a switch and say, "Alright, time to stop providing mediocre service and extend our operating hours." They receive a set amount of money, which is pitifully low, and have to make the most of it. They have to make the tremendously sucky decision, for example, of totally shutting down on July 4th and other holidays so that service on regular days is at least adequate (and barely so). If all these demands and petitions toward UTA to increase service went to the state legislature, which has the ability to give counties the right to raise taxes toward transit, we could be in a much better place.


August change day

UTA has released the details of its August change day. Brankrom, you will be happy about this:



Service to Guardsman Way is retained.

[jubguy3]

Do you guys think that as demand increases, UTA should test rushhour service from Daybreak/SLC and Draper/University Medical? Let's say 6:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. running every 15 minutes with 2 or 1 car trains - this is similar to how Denver does stuff (with everything in an X shape) except that trains don't run every 30 minutes weekdays only (seriously, people moan about UTA... We still have better service than Denver in respect to some trains). This, of course, would probably be far out in to the future as 4 car trains fill up (unless UTA wants to try and make platforms taper at the end to support 5 or 6 cars), presuming that the service would be limited.

[brankrom]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

The thing I dislike about these petitions, which inevitably pop up every once in a while, is that they operate under the assumption that UTA can flip a switch and say, "Alright, time to stop providing mediocre service and extend our operating hours." They receive a set amount of money, which is pitifully low, and have to make the most of it. They have to make the tremendously sucky decision, for example, of totally shutting down on July 4th and other holidays so that service on regular days is at least adequate (and barely so). If all these demands and petitions toward UTA to increase service went to the state legislature, which has the ability to give counties the right to raise taxes toward transit, we could be in a much better place.


August change day

UTA has released the details of its August change day. Brankrom, you will be happy about this:



Service to Guardsman Way is retained.

Indeed. Very happy.

[Hatman]

I've heard this was coming for a very long time. If it happens next year, it will be a BIG deal.

UTA: Flat fare no longer fair? Agency studies distance-based fares

For 45 years, the Utah Transit Authority allowed riders to go almost anywhere on its bus and TRAX system for one flat fare. That may change next year as the agency looks at charging fares based on how far passengers travel.

That could make those with longer commutes pay more, and those taking short trips pay less. UTA says such a system could be fairer, and the agency is beginning a final study to look at how to implement the change without losing ridership or revenue.

"We are still looking at if we want to do this," said Andrea Packer, UTA chief communications officer. "We have not made a final determination."

But UTA has been moving toward distance-based fares for years and says it is now at the point that it has the technical ability to do it — if it decides the move makes sense and riders will support it.

For example, UTA installed GPS location tracking on all buses. So if riders pay by electronic media — "tapping on and off" at the beginning and end of their trips — the system can track how far they travel and charge different fares accordingly. It would deduct the fare from money loaded onto an electronic card.

UTA says a distance-based fare system would preclude cash fares and require people to pay with electronic media. About 50 percent of UTA riders do that now, Packer said, either with passes (usually from universities or employers), the new electronic FAREPAY cards sold by UTA or even by smartphone apps.

Finish reading here:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...-fare.html.csp

I say go for it, with just a few suggestions:

1) Make the Farepay card more widely available; it needs to be sold more prominently and in many more places than it is now.

2) No cash is great for efficiency, but hard on people who don't prepare to ride transit (about 98% in my experience). So, how about (at least initially) the Ticket Vending Machines at rail stations be reconfigured to sell Farepay cards? Farepay is different than a Hive pass in that you don't need your photo on it, so it should be easy to sell in a vending machine. I know places like Chicago sell passes not by destination, but by loading money on a paper card with a magnetic strip; Chicago ticket machines are very simple in that they don't give change. They take all the money you put in and assign it to your card. If UTA could make such machines available not just at rail stations but also at prominent bus stations, I think that would make this much easier for the public to accept.

3) The fare matrix should be simple. I dislike fare 'zones,' as they make travel more stressful to the traveler. I would simply publicize a standard price/mile for the different modes, then include examples between high-trafficed stations. Then online, have a tool that allows a customer to choose any two stations, and let the computer calculate the miles per mode and then the total cost.

4) Have the fare system recognize friends/family/business associates. Include on your Farepay account which other farepay holders are your friends or family or co-workers, and each time you tap on or off together, UTA will give everyone a discount on the ride. This will make traveling with a group more comparable to riding together in a car or carpool or rideshare or vanpool or whatever. Right now the rising cost for each rider added to your group is a serious disadvantage for UTA, and this will go a long way towards fixing it.

I'm sure there are other possibilities too. Making everything electronic can really have some serious benefits to everyone. This makes me excited.

[JMK]

Salt Lake City ranks No. 22 nationally in transit use

By Lee Davidson, The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Aug 03 2014 02:51 pm

TRAX, FrontRunner and streetcar lines built in recent years have helped the Salt Lake City-West Valley City urban area climb to No. 22 nationally for transit trips per capita.

That’s according to an evaluation of 2013 federal transit data by FiveThirtyEight, an ESPN-owned polling and data website started by The New York Times, which takes its name from the number of electors in the U.S. Electoral College.

It figures that Salt Lakers took 42.2 "unlinked trips" per person via transit in 2013. That counts transfers during the same journey as separate trips. It is based on data reported to the National Transit Database by 290 urbanized areas with populations greater than 65,000 where transit service is offered.

The resulting No. 22 ranking put the Salt Lake urban area just ahead of Denver (41.1 trips per person); Harrisonburg, Va., home of James Madison University (40.7); Blacksburg, Va., home of Virginia State University (40.0); and Santa Barbara, Calif. (37.9).

The Salt Lake metro area ranked just behind Durham, N.C., home of Duke University (43.4 trips per person); Ann Arbor, Mich., home of the University of Michigan (44.4); Eugene, Ore., home of the University of Oregon (46.5); and Baltimore (47.4).

But some large cities are in an entirely different world when it comes to transit use.

New York City ranked No. 1 with 229.8 trips per capita — five and a half times higher than in Salt Lake.

Others in the top five were San Francisco-Oakland (131.5 trips per person); Washington, D.C. (99.6); Athens, Ga., home of the University of Georgia (99.5); and Boston (94.3).

"We are happy that our bus and rail lines are so well received by both Salt Lake City and West Valley City and we are continually working to improve ridership" there and elsewhere, said Jerry Benson, chief operating officer for the Utah Transit Authority.

"Ridership in these two cities is higher than any other metro areas in which UTA offers service. The data cited deals only with Salt Lake City and West Valley City, which have some inherent advantages over other metro areas in Utah," he said.

Among those advantages is that "Salt Lake County residents have chosen to invest a higher amount of sales tax for transit," he said. They pay a .69 percent sales tax for transit — about seven-tenths of a penny per dollar spent. Utah, Davis, Weber and Box Elder counties pay .55 percent, and Tooele pays .3 percent.

Benson said that means "residents in the Salt Lake-West Valley urbanized area enjoy a higher level of transit service" because of their higher taxes.

That includes completion of 70 miles of new rail systems in the past five years. Among the additions are TRAX extensions to South Jordan, West Valley City, Salt Lake City International Airport and Draper, and extending the FrontRunner commuter rail from Salt Lake to Provo. UTA also finished the Sugar House streetcar and added a bus rapid-transit line (sort of a TRAX on rubber wheels) in West Valley.

Benson said Salt Lake County has "three light-rail lines, a bus rapid-transit line, a commuter rail line and 11 bus routes with 15-minute frequency," which "average 2,000 to 4,000 boardings per day."

The Salt Lake area also is attracting new "transit-oriented development" near transit lines, he said, including City Creek in downtown Salt Lake City and West Valley’s Fairbourne Station — which "allow people to live, work and shop near high-frequency transit."

UTA data show that the agency had more than 44 million boardings last year, which was an all-time high but fell a bit short of agency goals. Meanwhile, ridership has been rising this year. Through May, UTA had 18.6 million riders, up from 18.2 million for the same period last year.

With completion of all the recent rail construction, "ridership is expected to hit another all-time high in 2014," Benson said.

"UTA is now focusing on improved bus service, including bus rapid transit, as well as facilitating the planning of more transit-oriented development" to help attract more riders, he said.

Of note, Logan and Cache County — which operates its own bus transit system — finished No. 66 on the FiveThirtyEight rankings. That put it just ahead of El Paso, Texas, (20.5 trips per person) and Phoenix-Mesa (20.0).

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...e-per.html.csp

[StevenF]

Someone at work had this paper this morning and I had a laugh knowing it was already posted on this site. Makes me wonder how much our local news papers and news stations get there info from this site when it comes to development and transit news.

[brankrom]

Originally Posted by JMK

Salt Lake City ranks No. 22 nationally in transit use

By Lee Davidson, The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Aug 03 2014 02:51 pm



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...e-per.html.csp

Makes one wonder why so much money is spent running empty flex buses in the netheregions of BFE suburbia instead of improving service coverage in the dense populations of SLC SSL and VVC?

[JMK]

Salt Lake City slaps hefty fines on ridesharing drivers

By Lee Davidson

| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Aug 07 2014 06:23 pm

New high-tech ridesharing services like Lyft and Uber say they are cheaper than a taxi, quicker and friendlier. But Salt Lake City contends they essentially are unlicensed taxi services and is cracking down by issuing expensive tickets to drivers.

"I received two tickets, for $6,500 each," says Angie Palmer, a college student and Lyft driver.

Fellow Lyft driver Amanda Wardell, a single mom who drives for extra money, said "it was pretty intense" when she saw her own ticket for $6,500. "I haven’t made that much driving for Lyft, so there aren’t words to describe how it felt to see that."

The city uses "secret shopper" tactics to ride on Lyft or Uber, then later sends a ticket by registered letter to drivers. David Everitt, chief of staff to Mayor Ralph Becker, said the city has issued 118 citations to such drivers; all but 17 were warnings with no financial penalty.

Everitt said the city has warned the firms that "if you are someone making money providing a ground transportation service, you need a ground transportation license. That’s the way it’s always been in the city." He adds that enforcement keeps a level playing field between the new companies and older taxi and shuttle services.

Meanwhile, Lyft is fighting the tickets, contending it is different than a taxi service and is not covered by current laws. Lyft is providing an attorney for drivers and says it will pay any final fines for them — as it has elsewhere nationally when other cities have similarly challenged the company.

"We will continue to stand strong with drivers and passengers every step of the way, fighting any citations, covering relevant costs and making policy," said Lyft spokeswoman Katie Dally.

This is very sad for me. I enjoy Lyft/Uber and the city saying "That’s the way it’s always been in the city." seems like a major copout, and tells me that they haven't made much or any attempt to work with the services. I don't know how this "keeps a level playing field" when lyft/uber is a much more professional experience than a cab.
-It's quicker - I don't have to wait for over an hour during peak times at night and risk losing my cab to someone else or the cab never even showing up. And I can track where my driver is on my phone to know when they are close.
-It's more pleasant - Every Lyft/Uber driver has been a pleasure to ride with and uses GPS to navigate the quickest route, where its common for a cab to get someone who barely speaks English and makes a DIY long route to the destination
-It's more convenient - Cab drivers get grumpy when you try to pay with a credit card and hassle you to pay cash (SHADY) and grumble when you ask for change (mind that I factor in 20% tip) whereas lyft and uber make it simple with credit card payment

But I guess for the city, "That’s the way it’s always been" seems like a great motto. I'm sure in the end it's all about tax revenue. Laissez-un-faire

[DMTower]

It's sad the city is being so backwards on this. I would think Mayor Becker would be more progressive in his stance. Uber is a far better experience than a cab, and in a city where you aren't allowed to hail a cab an app is the perfect solution.

[jedikermit]

Yes, yes, and yes. Also, yes. Surprised that Mayor Becker isn't more on board with this.

[UTPlanner]

I think the section of the article from the Tribune that was displayed is a bit deceiving. If you read the entire article the Mayor's Chief of Staff David Everitt states that the city is not against Uber/Lyft but they want to ensure that they are licensed with the city.

I'm a huge supporter of Lyft personally and I have stopped utilizing cabs. Cab companies need to realize that it's 2014 and with technology it can make a much better experience for riders and drivers.

[brankrom]

Lyft is no different than any other ride share or car pool service, its two individuals contracting for a ride. How dare people choose to car pool to work!

I've done it before... "Hey Joe, can I get a ride to the grocery store? I'll pay gas and buy a beer." Simple. This just uses technology. This is about a substandard service hiding behind government exclusivity deals. The city limits the number of cab licenses just like the DABC limits alcohol licenses it drives up prices and protects substandard service providers.